This is almost certainly due to diet rather than genetics. DNA doesn't change that quickly, and we're seeing a similar jump in China and Japan today, but in one generation, because better nutrition is available.

I have to agree with Chad that the headline is merely an attention grabber. Evolution, as stated by Thomas Huxley, is an established fact. Natural selection also. Darwin and his coevolutionist, Alfred Russel Wallace, could not have understood genetics since that was 25 years away. That they were able to understand how species changed and were selected for is a tribute to their genius.

It is a pity that so few people really understand natural selection in all its ramifications. There are still biologists who believe that a characteristic that is maladaptive can be passed down. For example, a group of entomologists hope to introduce a malaria immune mosquito into the wild populations, despite the fact that the immune strain live a shorter time.

In order to believe in natural selection it is necessary to have at least a smattering of statistical theory and to realize that, given a long time and a large population of competing organisms, an event that occurs with low probability becomes certainty.

All of us, biologists and laymen, should read "The Origin of Species..." and analyze Darwin's thinking, considering his examples.

1.) The point of the title is to be an attention grabber. I have no doubt that this is exactly what the author intended, especially considering the opening paragraph.

2.) There is one huge difference between evolution and theories like gravity and tectonic plates. For theories like gravity and tectonic plates, all evidence matches the established theories, and we're now trying to look for new and stranger environments which may teach us more. The current evidence in the fossil record has led to an as-of-yet unresolved problem in evolutionary biology: most species in the record appear to have developed over a very short time compared to the period that the species then exists unchanged for. This has led to many new theories about 'punctuated evolution', but as of yet all are unsupported stretches. That's the nature of science, of course, but it does put evolution on a bit of a precarious ledge.

C. Smith -- No, It simply goes back to my original point. There are "processes" to the theory of evolution that are constantly changing/being updated. That, however has zero barring of the *fact* of evolution. Gravity ... is no more a fact then that of evolution.

As part of the scientific community we need to exercise some intellectual humility. If the history of science has taught us anything, it would be that we should continuously challenge our understanding of the universe.

I think the article draws out a false premise "debate between science-minded types and religious believers". Making the the assumption that all other competing ideas to our own are not of "science-minded types". It is equivalent to using the "racist card" in a social economic argument.

Competing theories should be encouraged not segregated and removed from the scientific community. We should test all theories and let the science speak for itself. If Evolution is wrong then I will be the first to renounce it. But if it is right then all other competing theories make it stronger.

The goal of any honest scientist is to find the truth, regardless of the current intellectual subscription.

Evolution has more questions than answers, I admit. But throwing away the theory because we haven't finished the work is nonsense. Every serious proponent of Intelligent Design has raised some valid points. I refuse to dismiss these points just on the basis that they came from someone who apposes Evolution. To label valid points as moot just because of the religious belief of the proponent is utterly unacceptable.

Cuppola points: It's a *provocative* headline, not a dangerous one. Beautifully provocative. I mean, cummon. Newton was wrong, too, but nobody would question his genius...or how "right" he was. Darwin, like Newton, Marx, and Einstein, got it right. And like them, he didn't get it *all* right.

And if you ask a geophysicist what the evidence in support of our current theory of plate tectonics, he or she will say, "volcanoes." If you suggest that there are other geophysical phenomena that might explain volcanoes, he or she will respond, "Well, I suppose that's true." When you then ask what other evidence there is for plate tectonics, the response will generally be, "Not much else."

Try it (as I have). It's enlightening.

@3.5 "As part of the scientific community we need to exercise some intellectual humility."

I don't believe for a second that you're part of the "scientific community."

@3.6 'And if you ask a geophysicist what the evidence in support of our current theory of plate tectonics, he or she will say, "volcanoes." If you suggest that there are other geophysical phenomena that might explain volcanoes, he or she will respond, "Well, I suppose that's true." When you then ask what other evidence there is for plate tectonics, the response will generally be, "Not much else."'

Excellent work. Plate tectonics are wrong because you found an incompetent geophysicist. Makes perfect sense.

Continental drift can be measured. There is fossil evidence on separate continents from species that lived on the continents when they were joined. Seismic activity originates from plate boundaries. Mountains are formed from plates pushing together. Even the shapes of the continents suggest that they fit together.

If you wanna avoid sounding stupid, you'd best stick to criticizing evolution. Oh wait...

It disturbs me when people compare evolutionary theory things like gravity and tectonic plates. Has everyone forgot the scientific method? Its convenient to do so when your trying to push evolution.

The scientific method requires experimentation and something is only considered proven when this experimentation is repeatable. So, gravity and tectonic plates fit the scientific method.

Evolutionary theory, therefore, is not provable. I saw someone else say to look at the change in human height through the years. That actually fits the theory of environmental adaptation. Evolution claims trans-species change. There is no example of trans-species change nor is it possible to submit this to experimentation.

The sum of all this: to call evolution fact is highly flawed and actually very humorous.

@3.8 Yeah, you're probably right. All those times we observed evolution happening right before our eyes were not enough to prove anything so drastic as species changing over time.

@3.9 Youre exactly right species change over time. This is called micro-evolution which has been observed and is a proven fact(such as the various types of dogs), whereas macro evolution(one species becoming another species) has never been observed, has never been proven and never will be. I would assume youre either referring to either Darwin's finches and their various beaks, peppered moths during London's industrial revolution, or the observation of cave fish losing their eyes. All 3 of these "evidences" for MACRO-evolution are completely false and are just evidences for adapation to ones environment.

@3.10 Macro evolution is Micro evolution ... just on a much larger timescale. One that humans have a hard time grasping.

@3.11 Thats not even close to being right. Micro-evolution has created the hundreds of different species of dogs but in the end a dog is always a dog, and they always give birth to a type of dog. Macro-evolution is what happens when you get something like a fish from a dog or one species becomes another species, and like I said Macro-evolution has never been observed and never will be.

@3.12 "Macro-evolution is what happens when you get something like a fish from a dog"

No, that's not evolution at all, that's magic. I already doubted your knowledge of evolution but now I'm doubting your knowledge of anything.

Over a very long time fish evolved into land animals and after another very long time mammals emerged and then dogs. Some mammals went back into the water but didn't evolve into fish, they evolved into dolphins and whales.

A dog is always a dog. But a dog is not a wolf, which is what dogs evolved from. That's one species becoming another species, from simple small changes which you call micro-evolution accumulating over time. Macro-evolution is micro-evolution. I don't know why you think the drastic changes we see in the breeding of dogs couldn't account for wolves becoming dogs given enough time.

No, you are misstating evolution. It says nothing of the origins of first-source "life." Evolution involves the changes that occur over time regarding natural selection within a species. But, it goes with the assumption that the organism is already present. It has absolutely nothing to do with "Some primordial soup being struck by lightning" as it's proponents like to claim.

Furthermore, you are quite entitled to your beliefs regarding a supposed "creator" who uses evolution as his creative method. Just know that this is an explanation that is not needed. You are supplying a mystery where one is not needed ... and only tearing down certain tenants of science where a great deal of evidence to the contrary is easily assessable.

Lastly, let's not just throw up our hands and make such claims with such passivity. Millions of people have been slaughtered based on the notion that they disagreed on the "literal" interpretation of creation. I find it quite offensive that "moderates" can now sit here on the backs of generations lost and claim evolution for themselves (all the while knowing it was years of secular fights and struggles to further such scientific process.) To now label those that have no use of a "divinely" inspired creation myth as being close-minded is .... well, quite offensive in deed.

Actually, Chad, the mystery answered by "God" was already there. It's the mystery of where everything came from and why it exists. Science can try to answer how it got from state A to state B, but it can't answer why, and it's having a whole lot of trouble answering where it all came from (i.e. no state to state A).

That being said, Laughing is making some huge preemptive jumps himself (or herself). There are some closed-minded idiots who swear that evolution proves there is no god, and many of them are quite vocal and insistent about their beliefs. Thankfully, the theory itself says nothing on the matter.

You obviously haven't read up on evolution at all. The Theory isn't about major shifts within a time frame of a few weeks, months, or even a few years. It is all the cumulative changes over a few million years that turn one species into another.

But if you really want to find drastic changes in a short time frame, just look to virus's and bacterium. the HIV virus mutates and "evolves" every jump to a new host. From the few strains of primate immunodeficiency virus, now are millions of strains (Though can still be grouped because of similar properties).

In bacterium, you can quickly look to the evolution of the Staphylococcus aureus bacteria in to the MRSA, from the overuse of antibiotics.

C.Smith -- The moment you mention "The mystery was awnsered by God", please realize that you have automatically excused yourself from the argument. You simply can't come to the table with such a claim and think someone (in a scientific conversation) is going to take you serious. If that sounds harsh, I'm sorry. But it is a simple truth.

That being said, you are quite right that evolution has nothing to do with the belief in god. Your "god" could very well be the first-cause creator that started everything and continued the process through evolution. But, so could magical fairies living on the darkside of the moon. Sounds silly right? But, what is of the evidence for said fairy's existence? I would contend its the same for your particular form of god (which is none.) Does it really sound so silly? Or could it be when talking about evolution in the the context of your specific superstition is as relevant as talking about magical fairies living on the darkside of the moon?

"It never fails to amuse me that people are willing to obtusely propound on the "Fact Of Evolution" when in reality even those who believe in a creator do not dispute the possibility that it is possible for species to evolve."

Then we appear to have encountered different sets of believers.

Going back through this site's archives for he responses to any story involving evolution (even peripherally) will tend to prove my point.

Killerdrgn

My point exactly ! !

There are just way WAY too many "leaps of faith" that have to be made for anyone to accept as fact the proposal that organisms as complex as cats (let alone Humans,) could have "evolved" from bacteria. I appreciate your cogent contribution to my thesis!

'There are just way WAY too many "leaps of faith" that have to be made for anyone to accept as fact the proposal that organisms as complex as cats (let alone Humans,) could have "evolved" from bacteria.'

Even if it took faith (which it doesn't) to accept that we DID evolve from bacteria, it wouldn't take even the slightest bit of faith to accept that we COULD HAVE evolved from bacteria.

@ LaughingHard you said "There are just way WAY too many "leaps of faith" that have to be made for anyone to accept as fact the proposal that organisms as complex as cats (let alone Humans,) could have "evolved" from bacteria. I appreciate your cogent contribution to my thesis!"

Really and what leaps of faith are people taking when they state a supreme created waved his hands and created everything including Mud-Man and Rib-Woman from nothing?

@chad. doesn't cloning lend credence to the theory of intelligent design, whatever that intelligence may be, because if we can do it then its a definite possibility that someone or something millions of years older than us perfected it or with the ability to spark the evolutionary process. im no religious man but i like to think that if i cloned some people, did not educate them, and put them on a undeveloped planet, that they would think of me as a god who created them in his image.

@6.9 "im no religious man but i like to think that if i cloned some people, did not educate them, and put them on a undeveloped planet, that they would think of me as a god who created them in his image."

That's a lot different from putting microbes on a planet hoping they'll evolve into something like you.

John, you are wrong in your definition of scientific theory and scientific law. The main difference between theory and law is laws can be quantified, that is, expressed mathematically. Gravity is a law because it can be quantified and tested beyond any doubt. Evolution, on the other hand, cannot be quantified, and therefore will always be a theory, never to be elevated to the status of law. But there is yet to be any evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution, that is why the great majority of scientists consider it to be fact.

One other thing - monkeys still exist because evolution is not linear. And the belief that the earth was the center of the universe was not due to scientific error, it was due to the lack of scientific method, and the religious dogma which tried to explain our lack of understanding about the universe around us.

If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

"Not to question evolution"

How are you not questioning evolution?

"but you non science people out there"

Liiike... you?

"people believed the earth to be the center of the universe due to scientific error"

Actually that was a religious error (the term is redundant, I know). Science had nothing to do with that.

"a lot of things might, and most likely will, be proven incorrect on some level or another"

If you mean that some hypotheses will be reworked, then yes. But if you mean to suggest that a well established scientific fact like natural selection will be turned on its head, then no, that won't happen.

"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

~ Isaac Asimov

Theory is accepted by the scientific community because it has yet to be disproven, it has also yet to be proven, therefore it is Theory. Like it or not there are large amounts of discrepancy in what the theory of evolution states and the facts of human, and animals for that matter, evolutionary trails. I know you're one of those absolutists unfortunately for you truths change over time and like i said i'm not for or against evolution, but nothing is absolute my friend. Linear, the survival of the fittest statement i was fitting in is that in certain environments animals evolve to survive, yet monkeys still survive in areas where monkeys supposedly adapted to become humans. Science has plenty to do with the error in judgement to whether earth was the center of the universe or not. The difference is time, not science, in those days science was in a primordial state, as in 1000 years so will our science be, leading to a lot of errors. You think our science is absolute then you are in for a sad future.

Way to not address anything I said. "Science has plenty to do with the error in judgement to whether earth was the center of the universe or not." How can you possibly say that? It was an assumption based on the idea that we were the most important things in the universe, God's special creation. It was complete and total religious vanity. And you clearly have no idea what a theory is. A theory in scientific terms is not a hypothesis or conjecture like it is in common usage. It's not called a fact because the word fact doesn't do evolution justice. A theory takes a great many facts into account. Haven't you ever heard of music theory? Is that "just a theory" too?

You were not the only person i was referring to scythe. I know exactly what theory means, it is an accepted truth although it has yet to be proven, either true or false. It is accepted based on the assumptions and partial evidence's of scientists and other professionals, not unlike the "truths" accepted by those who accepted that the earth was the center of the universe not so long ago and their evidence's. We both understand religion was the basis for a large amount of science in those days, no disagreement here, my point in that matter is during those times those were accepted practices in science and today we have another set of accepted practices, whos to say in the future those practices will still be upheld. This whole statement from me is hoping to encourage current and future scientist's not to just accept something that might be accepted by the scientific community today. A lot of things change over time and today scientists are still changing, adjusting, or completly disregarding scientific claims made just a short time ago so i'm asking for people to keep an open mind and to use that mind to find better more accurate truths about this universe.

"I know exactly what theory means"

No, you don't.

"it is an accepted truth although it has yet to be proven, either true or false."

No, theories are not "yet to be proven." A theory is the highest status science can ever achieve.

"i'm asking for people to keep an open mind and to use that mind to find better more accurate truths about this universe."

No, you're asking people to disregard science and create the impression that there's a lack of evidence for evolution, thus catering to creationists who are dishonest and follow religious dogma with a closed mind.

"It is still called the theory of evolution"

Yes, because scientific theories are explanatory collections of facts. It's incredibly difficult for something to reach the well respected status of a scientific theory.

"it lacks specific proof"

... like?

"there is design"

...... liiiike?

"the Creator will make Himself evident at the right time"

Meaning he's not evident already? So you admit you're believing something with no evidence?

"and then you can explain evolution to Him"

Evolution is a fact. Even if there's a divine creator, life still evolves. And a being who created everything created evolution and a being who's omniscient would obviously know about it.

"THERE STILL IS NO PROOF FOR EVOLUTION OR GLOBAL WARMING."

By global warming I presume you mean climate change. It's one thing to be so cowardly as to ignore an impending disaster. It's even worse to deny it's happening at all. But going out of your way trying to convince other people not to do anything about it is on a whole other level.

I do agree with Scyth here.. How can you believe in the "Creator" when his is not evident as you said??? but not believe in evolution, when it has been proven a fact in a way or another???

if that day happens mike i don't think your creator is going to be to happy about your "i told you so attitude", why don't you sift through the B.S. of religion and live your life by the good values that it teaches, wheter you believe in a creator or not is irrelevent, its about how you live. and why is it so hard for you creationists to just say okay maybe our creator sparked evolution. i'm assuming you are christian so chew on this, go back and read genisis cause the creation of adam and eve sounds like a allegory for cloning, god created man in his image then took a rib from man and created woman. hmmm more probable that he used DNA not clay and magic. but more likely is evolution not allegorical morality tales.

Because the ecological niches filled by monkeys still exist. Humans evolved to fill a different ecological niche.

Humans and other apes share a common ancestor with monkeys. Modern monkeys are probably as different from that common ancestor as we are. You could just as legitimately ask, "If monkeys evolved from that common ancestor, why are there still humans?"

Speciation occurs when an existing species occupying and existing niche comes into contact with a new and unoccupied niche. If some members of the population can take advantage of the new niche, they may eventually split from the parent population to evolve into a new species.

"Before I get started here Darwin became a christian in his later years."

Why on Earth would you need to proclaim that before you even got started? Does your nonsense hold no sway otherwise? Does Darwin's religion have any bearing on evolution? If anything, Darwin being a Christian should make it easier for Christian's to accept evolution.

In actuality, Darwin was a Christian to begin with and spent his entire life believing in God. He began to question his faith in later years, and the claims that he regained his faith on his deathbed were falsified by his own children. So thank you for starting out by making sure everyone knows how dishonest you are.

Please do read the Bible, by the way. Read it all the way through. It's the best cure for Christianity.

Please keep your rhetorical comments to yourself,it only undermines your own self worth to that of a

subjective fool.Your comments only belittle your own self ignorance of not actually looking at or comprehending both sides.

@Ryan -- Enforcing the "both sides" argument when it comes to evolution is like arguing for the both sides debate between astrology and astronomy. Or, like arguing for the debate between chemistry and alchemy. See where this is going? Evolution is science. I.D. is a fabrication of pseudo-sciences created by biased men and woman who can't come to terms between their own superstitions/inherited beliefs ... and the way the natural world appears to operate.

"The Scientific Method teaches that if you can't prove a hypothesis wrong it becomes a theory"

... wot?

"Lets be real scientists"

Yes, let's.

I learned about many scientists in life, many of which never attended a university, others who were thrown out or misunderstood in their time. Yes I wrote it if I am wrong than truely correct me, I see no correctin here, I see a simple bashing. At least I was not afraid to post something. I am not extensively university educated, I have an associates of science automotive service technology, meaningless to some, meaningful to me because I went to school so I could support my wife and children. Let me tell you smug types that dont want to really discuss, but just shoot down, you are the ones who are not scientists. As a child I started experimentation of my own which I have continued throughout my life because I was and am interested. It doesn't matter to me if you try to make me look like a fool, I may not be fully correct, but I am not above correction and am willing to discuss facts and experiments and information so I can learn more. I seek truth and I am an independant scientist if you decide that I am not good enough, go back into scientific history and throw out all the others who started with humble scientific beginnings and no university degree, then take a look at all the beautiful science you just threw away. At least I know that I dont know everything and am still trying to learn, and am not afraid to stand up to the likes of those who are educated to the point of thinking they know it all. I am not afraid, I will still seek truth, and I will still state things incorrectly along the way, you want to stomp on me fine, you have shown who you really are, that is truely not a scientist at all. If I am wrong, where is the truth, I did not see where you wrote it? Was my statement so simple that it did not deserve more than that in your eyes? You will probably never know this personally, but I am a caring individual who has loved and studied science and scientific eveidence since I can remember, I was simply facinated as a boy and still am today. Real scientists discuss information, I am willing to discuss, what about you?

Since I did such a poor job of describing the Scientific Method from my own nerdy memory, I decided to post it here.

This has been borrowed from the following web site: http://www.scientificmethod.com/bpg06_basicsteps.html

PART 1 – Observation through Hypothesis
1. Curious Observation
2. Is There a Problem?
3. Goals and Planning
4. Search, Explore, & Gather the Evidence
5. Generate Creative & Logical Alternatives
6. Evaluate the Evidence
7. Make the Educated Guess

Part II – Challenge through Suspend Judgment
8. Challenge the Hypothesis
9. Reach a Conclusion
10. Suspend Judgment
Part III – Implementation or Peer Review
11. Take Action

Supporting Ingredients

Part IV – Action or Applied Ingredients
12. Creative, Non-logical, Logical & Technical Methods
13. Procedural Principles & Theories
14. Attributes & Thinking Skills

When I referrred to "if you cant prove the hypothesis wrong", I was in my mind referring to the part of Challenge the Hypothesis. Yes I stated it unclearly and incoorect even, so I corrected myself since I could not get a correction from someone else, just a quick statement with no facts. Any scientist who can't be wrong is not a scientist at all, he is just setting up another religion!

Wow! You really put a LOT of time and effort into your post. UNFORTUNATELY, your points are well...pointless... to say the least.

The different experts and material you have cited are so outdated (those that have dates) it's not even worth arguing about them.

Now, since you obviously know how to conduct research I would suggest you use material that is, at least, POST 2000 A.D. Then, your effort to sway anyone toward your viewpoint will be more effective.

I am definitely not saying it will sway me in anyway, shape or form because I whole heartedly believe in evolution.

"We share a common ancestor with monkeys and also a common ancestor with apes. We did not evolve from either."

Not only did we evolve from monkeys, we ARE monkeys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8

No you are a monkey scythe im a human.

And like I said, humans are monkeys. At least watch the video.

NoodlyJames I have a problem with your 3rd and 4th points. In your third point you say that DNA doesnt need a designer, because we have created DNA in labs using simple chemistry. That statement completely contradicts itself. The person that created it IS the designer, we have information therefore we can design the DNA. The problem occurs when we go back to the very first strand of DNA ever designed. In your 4th point you present the point of the "imperfections" of the human eye. The question I have is, why does intelligent design have to have perfection? We create thing that are imperfect all the time(ie. Microsoft word) The point is that the human eye does the job even if it isnt exactly perfect.